TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:I think it'll be interesting when texas finally gets up the guts to go independent. They're showing a very poor grasp of history. Texas football wasn't always the best program in the state, much less the nation. (Even as recently as the 90s, the horns were laughably bad).

As long as they keep winning, they'll do fine as an indy school. But what do the other indys have that texas doesn't? Religious affiliations.

BYU can lose a lot, and mormons will still support them. ND can lose a lot (and it does) and it will still have the support of catholics. Who exactly does texas expect to support them when they're losing? (and it will happen again).


As to the "well there was never any threat of lawsuit"....when the president of the school announces that they're reserving the right to sue..that's a threat. Just because no lawsuit was FILED doesn't mean there weren't threats.

I think it would be hilarious to see the Big East sue the Big 12 and Baylor for pulling TCU away from them.

Good grief. It was the SEC that required a waiver to be signed. Why do all Aggies fail to understand that?
At that point, Aggies ask everyone in the conference to sign away their RIGHT without anything in return. Would you sign away a right without any consideration in return??
Baylor wasn't the only school to refuse to sign either...

That is NOT a threat. If I am asked to waive my 2nd Amendment right and then refuse, am I threatening to shoot???

Lastly, the horns aren't going independent. They have no desire to. However, historically they are easily the best program in the state. It's not even close really. Sure, they've had some down periods, but over the course of history they've dominated.

gigag04 wrote:

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Bulldog1911 wrote:It's all GREED!

Everyone is quick to blame Texas, yet if your school was propositioned with the ability to make more money and have their own network, they would do it too. The fact of the matter is that all these schools are trying to get more money, and they are using the Longhorn network as a scapegoat. Let's blame them so that we don't look bad. UT, A&M, OU, OSU, Missouri, all of them are greedy. It's all about the money. Greed and jealousy broke up the Big 12.

This is accurate. No doubt. That's all there is to it.

Also, one school can do whatever they want to look out for their own interests without breaking any agreements or rules (UT <-- The LHN didn't break any agreements or contracts), yet another school can use that same excuse to break up the conference, cost everyone tens of millions of dollars, and then not understand the facts. Why can A&M look out for their interest, but Texas, Baylor and the others cannot? Here are the facts, plain and simple:

Fact 1 - The SEC's invite was contingent upon signatures on waivers because they knew they would be the target of T.I. lawsuits if they didn't require this. They wouldn't have required the waiver otherwise, and no conference in history has asked for a waiver before.

Fact 2 - BU, ISU, KU, KSU, MU did not sign the waivers. None of these universities said they would sue or threatened to sue. They all plainly, did not sign a waiver.


Non facts that our brethren in CS seem to all believe:
1) Baylor threatens to sue (they never once did... media conjecture doesn't make it a fact)
2) Texas is the bad guy because they can make their own network and A&M can't. (This makes A&M look bad IMO... like they have an inferiority complex to big brother)
3) It's all about equity. (Where was the concern about equity when the NU & CU left and A&M was given the larger piece of the pie?)
4) Others should stop looking out for their own interests so the aggies can have their way. (That makes a lot of sense... only in CS).

gigag04 wrote:No threat of lawsuit: false.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/09 ... r-the-sec/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney ... -slamdunk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/colleg ... c-goal.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.chron.com/sports/aggies/arti ... 162144.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And others...

Good thing you're a cop and not a lawyer. (Maybe that's why A&M has no law school? )

Not one of those links proves or shows where Baylor is suing or threatening to sue.
Show me a link where a Baylor representative states they're threatening to sue.

The media took a spin and ran with it.

If you can find one place where a Baylor rep said straight up, "we will sue" or "we may sue" or something along those lines, I'll personally pay you $50 next time I drive through Bryan/CS.

You, along with a lot of delusional ags on Texags, are flat out wrong. The ONLY thing Baylor said, is "We're not signing a waiver" or "We're not going to relinquish our right to sue". That is NOT the same as threatening to sue. It's holding onto a right.

I can go find links that say CHLs and Guns cause crime. Does that make it right?
You need to find a valid source that quotes Baylor or a rep from Baylor as saying they will sue. You cannot find one, because they never did.
All of those links have made a leap that Baylor "is suing", but none have proven or shown that they said they would sue. That is all conjecture.

gigag04 wrote:LHN went live August 26th, 2011. Game changer for the now defunct Big 12 - going live with that stupid channel, IMHO, nullified anything any conference member promised.

Saw this in TexAgs, and it sums up my thoughts in BU, especially during the lawsuit:

Baylor was worried it would be left in a lurch and then self-fulfilled that prophecy by throwing its collective body on the floor, kicking and screaming, in essence announcing to the college football world, “But I want an Oompah-Loompah now!

What lawsuit??
Texags is a pathetic site full of misinformation. THERE WAS NO LAWSUIT. There wasn't even a threat of a lawsuit.

"Not signing a waiver" is not the same as suing or even threatening to sue. It's not even a legal action. Refusing to sign a waiver is simply saying, "I'm not going to relinquish my rights." Why in the world would they sign the waiver??
Would you relinquish a right for nothing in return?

Saying there was a lawsuit because they wouldn't sign the waiver, is like saying that refusing to waive my 2nd Amendment rights is the same thing as threatening to shoot someone.


What A&M fails to see as a collective is that when CU and NU left, the exit fees were supposed to be distributed evenly. They weren't.
Only A&M, Texas, and OU got those fees and in return agreed to keep the conference together. Then one year later, the aggies threaten to take their toys and leave because of the LHN.
They owe $31,000,000 in exit fees and their share of the money back to the conference, and refuse to pay it, but then ask everyone to sign a waiver to let them go free and clear? How delusional is that?

FYI, ISU took out $40,000,000 in bonds on the agreement that A&M made with the Big12 last year to stay in the league. They are counting on the Big12 TV money for those bonds to pay for campus improvements, etc. Why would they waive their right?

gigag04 wrote:tu sunk the Big 12. They are propping it up just long enough so they can stop sucking to the point of going independent. Texas fans truly believe their school to be God's gift to football. This attitude got them tied up with the stupid Longhorn Network (which is only available via Verizon Fios svc...). They drove away the competitive members of the conference, add stuck with what's left.

The Big XII is defunct. tu made their bed, they can lie in it. Don't even get me started on Baylor....

No kidding. How dare Baylor refuse to sign a waiver to give up their rights with nothing in return!? How dare they!

Would you sign a waiver to give up one of your rights with no consideration in return?
Aggies are so nuts and misinformed on that subject, it's delusional.
This coming from the University whose President, after making a 10 year commitment that financially impacts everyone in the conference said,

"As the weekend concluded and we entered into Monday, however, the TV networks stepped up and indicated they would invest significantly in the 10 remaining members of theBig 12. And the Big 12 made a significant financial commitment to keep TexasA&M, Oklahoma and Texas in the conference. At the end of the day, we kept our word, which as an Aggie, is extremely important. I simply ask that all ofour Aggie Family take a deep breath and consider the outcomes of this decision.Texas A&M now has financial parity for the first time with the other two major Big 12 athletic programs in terms of revenue and the opportunity to use our brand to Texas A&M’s best advantage. Our student-athletes will also benefit, and we have preserved many traditional rivalries that we treasure.”

"Texas A&M is a proud member of the Big 12 Conference and will continue to be affiliated with the conference in the future. As Athletics Director Bill Byrne and I havestated on numerous occasions, our hope and desire was for the Big 12 tocontinue. We are committed to the Big 12 and its success today and into the future.-- Statement on Texas A&M's conference affiliation from President R. BowenLoftin 6/14/10.


BTW, it wasn't just Baylor. In fact, ISU had the most to lose and KSU, KU, and MU also refused to sign.